Tzar Nicholas 2 Political Naivete example essay topic

It was Tzar Nicholas 2 political naivete and extreme that led to the downfall of the Russia Certain aspects of Tzar Nicholas 2's behaviour definitely contributed to bringing about the fall of the Russian Empire, however most of these qualities were not weaknesses in character as such, they were qualities we would associate with poor leadership. When we say 'weakness in character' we mean being easily influenced / controlled by others. Nicholas himself was a firm believer in autocracy; he was virtually unmovable in this belief. And this belief clearly illustrates he stuck to his beliefs, although in his early years as tsar his uncles had huge influence. That said, the fall of the Russian Empire was not all a result of Nicholas' character and poor leadership qualities, we must also see that the huge socio-economic changes happening as well as the outbreak WWI hugely influenced the coming about of and the timing of the revolution. These changes would be hard for any government to manage.

Nicholas 2's firm and belief of his commitment to autocracy can be clearly seen in a letter of reply he sent to a liberal zemstvo head before his coronation. "I shall maintain the principal of autocracy just as firmly and unflinchingly as it was preserved by my unforgettable dead father (Alexandra 3) " (Nicholas & Alexandra, Robert K. Massie). His ultra-conservative political outlook was influenced greatly when a child Tzar Nicholas was educated by the reactionary tutor Konstantin Pobenonstev, enemy of all reform. If there were any doubts about Nicholas' belief in autocracy they would have been put to rest.

Pobenonstev was once called "The Highest Priest of Social Stagnation". He once declared, "Among the falsest of political principles is the principle of sovereignty of the people". In his early manhood Nicholas lived the life of an idle socialite uninterested in the affairs of state, he found government meetings 'boring' and uninteresting. As he had never taken a liking to political affairs he was under prepared to take the throne, this fact along -with his stubborn belief in autocracy- also goes a long way to explain his political naivete in many of the difficult situations he faced.

Was this unwillingness to face the political realities due to him being blinded be his obstinate belief in autocracy or was it just that he was politically na " ive? Throughout his rule as discontent rose Nicholas still believed that he still had the support of all his people save for a couple of 'undesirables'. In a sense he was living in an alternate political reality. An example of his political naivete was the 1905 revolution that nearly toppled the regime. Before this there had been enormous changes to the composition of the upper-class; the nobles-traditional upper-class- had lost a lot of their power and influence.

The new upper-class of bankers, merchants and intelligentsia wanted reform to the system of government, the creation of a parliament (Duma). But Nicholas, blind to the threat of a united elite and lower class-they were already protesting over shocking working conditions- wanting reform refused demands, as a result Nicholas' government nearly fell and if not for the shrewd political maneuvering of Minister Sergius Witte certainly would have. The October Manifesto gave basic civil liberties and a Duma with limited powers. This example illustrates that Nicholas was not of weak character but was politically na " ive. His fatal decision to go to the front to command Russian troops in WWI proved to be a catalyst for the revolution, he left behind him in Petersburg his wife Alexandra and the mysterious 'man of god' Rasputin. Alexandra was deeply attached to Rasputin as he had the power to hypnotize and heal her hemophiliac son Alexis when he was bleeding.

As Alexandra had a lot of power when Nicholas was away Rasputin was able to influence her to the extent that he was appointing ministers and incredibly incompetent ones at that. The only criterion was that the ministers should support Rasputin. The fact that Alexandra and Rasputin were interfering so much in government matters led to Nicholas' support fading among the nobles, officials and army generals. They saw a tzar who had let a couple of incompetent people run the government. This was probably a weakness in character for Nicholas that he had let Rasputin, through Alexandra wield so much power. But Rasputin was an incredibly cunning man and was able to do something special to Alexis so was it weakness in character on Nicholas' part or was it that Rasputin was so smart and cunning that he couldn't be stopped.

Through the final years Nicholas managed to alienate most of his traditional supporters in the upper class. They wanted reform and the tsar refused to create a popular government. This can also be seen as an example of his political naivete, he didn't realize the true magnitude of the situation. If he had managed to keep a united upper-class the 1917 revolution might have been avoided. His ultra-conservative outlook prevented the emergence of a stable middle class and a liberal type government. There were other very big factors that contributed to the revolution that the tzar had little to do with.

There were massive socio-economic changes taking place some of which led to the re composition of the upper-class (intelligentsia, merchants etc) and an urban bourgeoisie. It created a new class of factory workers, the urban working class, mostly peasants moved to the city, and who now worked in shocking conditions. With the outbreak of WWI the Russian economy had to produce everything itself after Turkey entered the war on the German side cutting off the last realistic trade route, this led to food shortages which contributed to the growing discontent among workers who were already deeply anti-government. Nicholas did make the decision to go to war which can be seen as a catalyst for accentuating discontent but it was not weakness of character, just politically na " ive. Anyway Russia could have been dragged into the war for other reasons later on. The fall of the Russian Empire was a result of a complex web of factors.

The ultra-conservatism and political naivete of Tsar Nicholas 2 greatly contributed to the fall, as did the huge socio-economic changes, modernization / industrialization of the period. However I don't believe that Nicholas had a weak character, he was a man who stuck steadfastly to his views however wrong for the time they might have been. It was his character not weakness of character that helped bring about the fall of the Russian Empire along with many other complicated factors..